This week’s opportunities span cancer diagnostics, medicines manufacturing, research delivery, and community health and care services. Many have specific eligibility or partnership requirements, so organisations will need to assess whether they can meet the criteria and prepare a credible bid. The report also distinguishes live opportunities from pipeline notices, which can help members decide whether to act now or prepare for a future call.

UKHLSI members receive the weekly report and can discuss tailored support with assessing opportunities, strengthening bids and finding delivery partners. Organisations interested in joining UKHLSI or discussing a specific opportunity can contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

Wendy Olayiwola

National Maternity Lead for Equality, NHS England

Speaking at the Women’s Healthcare and FemTech Summit in Manchester organised by UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), NHS England’s National Maternity Lead for Equality set out how inequalities in health, access and experience shape maternity care. She called for services to respond to women’s needs across their lives, listen to their concerns and support a workforce able to deliver safe, inclusive care.

Maternity services only work well when every woman can understand and reach the care available to her and feels safe using it. That was the message from Wendy Olayiwola, National Maternity Lead for Equality at NHS England, at the Women’s Healthcare and FemTech Summit in Manchester.

Olayiwola’s contribution formed part of the summit’s morning programme, which followed the health journey women experience – from menstrual and reproductive health to pregnancy and maternity care. The wider event brought together healthcare leaders, policymakers, researchers, investors, employers, and innovators to discuss how to improve outcomes, reduce inequalities, and turn policy ambition into action.

“Maternity services only become meaningful when every woman – and I mean every woman – regardless of her background, ethnicity, where she was born or the postcode where she lives, understands the services available, can reach those services and feels safe within them,” she said.

Inequalities remain stark

Olayiwola said evidence continued to show unequal outcomes in maternity care, particularly for Black and Asian women and women living in deprived areas. She cited the latest MBRRACE-UK report, which recorded 257 maternal deaths during pregnancy or within six weeks of the end of pregnancy between 2021 and 2023.

The report put the maternal mortality rate at 12.44 per 100,000 maternities for white women, 16.74 for Asian women, and 28.21 for Black women. Black women remained 2.3 times more likely to die than white women, while women in the most deprived areas were 1.9 times more likely to experience maternal mortality.

Olayiwola said the figures sat within wider inequalities across women’s health. Women in the wealthiest areas live almost ten years longer than women in the poorest, she noted, and can expect around 20 more years in good health.

She stressed that these differences were not inevitable. They were shaped by systemic, structural and cultural factors – and could be prevented.

“These inequalities are absolutely not inevitable. They are preventable.”

She also highlighted the importance of listening to women’s experiences alongside mortality figures and formal reviews. Around one in ten women reported that concerns raised during labour and birth were not taken seriously in the 2025 survey, she said.

Care must follow the whole life course

One of the main themes of Olayiwola’s speech was that women’s health should not be treated as a set of separate services. Menstrual health, fertility, pregnancy, postnatal recovery, and later life are connected parts of a woman’s health journey, she argued.

Social conditions also shape health before a woman reaches maternity services. Food insecurity, unsafe housing and inflexible work can affect women’s health and access to care. Preconception support can help manage existing conditions, including diabetes, epilepsy and cardiovascular disease, before pregnancy begins.

The summit agenda was designed around a similar life-course approach, connecting lived experience and inequalities with discussions about research, innovation, funding, and delivery. Its afternoon programme shifted the focus to what government, health systems, investors, employers, and innovators could do to improve outcomes.

Respectful care and a supported workforce

Olayiwola described respectful care as part of clinical quality, not an optional addition. It means giving women clear information, gaining their consent and making sure they feel able to return when their symptoms change. It also means listening to women, believing them and providing professional interpretation when needed.

She called for women’s reported experiences to be measured and considered alongside clinical outcomes, with data reviewed across different communities.

The workforce, she added, is central to whether policy becomes good care. Discrimination and fear of speaking up can affect communication, decision-making, and escalation. She also highlighted the importance of representation and career progression for Black and brown staff.

“The workforce is the medium through which policy becomes care.”

Olayiwola said responsibility for tackling maternity inequalities extended beyond the NHS. NHS and integrated care board leaders, policymakers, commissioners, investors, and innovators all had a role to play.

She concluded by returning to the importance of acting before women enter maternity services. By the time someone reaches fertility or maternity care, opportunities to address some risks may already have been missed. Improving outcomes therefore requires action on wider population health as well as women’s health.

The summit’s wider aim was to turn those discussions into practical recommendations, partnerships and continued work through a Women’s Healthcare Working Group.

Olayiwola’s key message was that lasting progress depends on connecting those commitments with the experiences women have throughout their lives.

Get involved – Women’s Health Working Group

To find out more about getting involved with UKHLSI’s Women’s Health Working Group chaired by former Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, and Mental Health and Social Care, Paula Sherriff, please contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk

Published on 14 October, the 2030 Strategy sets out how the agency intends to support faster access to safe and effective treatments while strengthening patient involvement, improving safety monitoring and tackling illegal medicines.

Its ambitions extend beyond approving individual products. The strategy envisages a regulator that uses AI in its own work, draws more effectively on hospital and genomic data, and collaborates internationally to reduce duplication.

For patients, the promise is earlier access to innovations that can prevent, diagnose and treat disease. For developers, it is a clearer and more predictable route through regulation. Whether those benefits reach frontline care will depend on how effectively the strategy connects with the wider health system.

AI is changing healthcare – and the regulator intends to change with it

Among the most significant commitments is the establishment of an MHRA Centre for AI and Digital Health, intended to clarify regulatory expectations for developers of digital and AI-driven medical devices and medicines.

The agency also plans to create a modern, adaptive framework for AI as a medical device and publish an AI Medicines Development Action Plan in 2027.

An AI-enabled Clinical Trial Protocol Checker will support sponsors in preparing higher-quality applications, while the regulator intends to recruit specialist expertise and use AI to analyse real-world data and identify potential safety concerns earlier.

MHRA Chief Executive Lawrence Tallon said:

“We are in the midst of a period of extraordinary scientific and technological discovery, which is helping to reshape how diseases can be prevented, diagnosed and treated. AI is transforming both regulated products and how organisations are run. Cell and gene therapies are offering the possibility of long-lasting or curative treatments. Precision and personalised medicines are transforming the accuracy and effectiveness of treatments. Advanced diagnostics are driving earlier intervention and better outcomes for patients.

“These ground-breaking developments challenge traditional regulatory models and require innovative approaches to evidence generation, clinical research design, manufacturing oversight and safety and surveillance. Our 2030 Strategy sets out how, working with our partners across health and life sciences, we will translate scientific and technological innovation into better health outcomes for people across all four nations of the UK.”

The distinction between regulating AI and using AI to regulate matters. Developers need clarity about the evidence their products must generate; the MHRA will also need assurance that its own AI tools produce reliable, explainable results.

An adaptive framework will therefore need to combine flexibility with clear accountability, particularly where a product’s performance changes after deployment.

Faster regulatory decisions could help patients – if the wider pathway keeps pace

The strategy includes concrete proposals to improve regulatory services.

A new higher-value service option will shorten the scientific advice timetable from 90 days to 45 days, while the initial assessment target for qualifying Phase 1 clinical trials will be halved to 14 days.

The MHRA also intends to make faster decisions on generic and biosimilar products, supporting earlier patient access and opportunities for NHS savings.

For businesses, predictable timelines can be as valuable as shorter ones, helping developers plan studies, investment and market entry.

However, regulatory approval is one stage in the journey to patient access. Evidence requirements, assessment, commissioning, procurement, workforce readiness and implementation must connect. Otherwise, time saved during regulation risks being lost later in the pathway.

The proposed targeted voucher scheme to reduce regulatory barriers for start-ups and smaller companies could help broaden access to support. Its practical value will depend on eligibility, availability and how well it addresses the costs smaller developers face.

Better safety monitoring will depend on better-connected data

The MHRA plans to enhance access to real-world data from hospitals and genomics, working with the Health Data Research Service to identify safety signals sooner and collect information on investigational medicinal products.

For medical devices, the strategy promises better data collection and more precise identification and traceability throughout their lifecycle. Yellow Card reporting will also become simpler and quicker for patients and healthcare professionals.

These commitments recognise that evidence generation continues after a product enters use. Real-world data can help reveal how treatments perform across different populations and clinical settings.

For AI, this is particularly relevant: performance may vary between organisations, patient groups and workflows. Effective surveillance will require consistent information, clear reporting responsibilities and the ability to act when problems emerge.

Data connectivity should therefore be judged by whether it supports timely clinical and regulatory decisions, alongside its technical reach.

Co-Chair of the UKAI Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group, and President of Genomics, Dave Thornton welcomed the strategy:

“As a science-led pioneer in healthcare and life sciences, we welcome the MHRA’s commitment to supporting scientific excellence and innovation. The 2030 Strategy will help people access transformative scientific and technological innovation faster, ultimately leading to better health outcomes.”

Co-Chair of the UKAI Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group, and VP, Head of R&D Digital and AI at Lundbeck, Adama Ibrahim said:

“The MHRA 2030 Strategy creates a real opportunity to redesign the regulated life-sciences pathway end to end. With commitments including an AI-enabled Clinical Trial Protocol Checker, a 2027 AI Medicines Development Action Plan, a Centre for AI and Digital Health, faster Phase I assessment and greater use of real-world data, the opportunity is bigger than automating individual regulatory steps.

“Pharma, regulators, NHS partners and technology companies should view this strategy as opening up opportunities for collaboration pre-competitively to accelerate reinventing end-to-end workflows, evidence and decisions across regulated areas of the value chain.”

Patients must help shape innovation – and share in its benefits

The strategy commits the MHRA to increasing diversity in clinical studies, strengthening patients’ contributions to regulatory decisions and publishing a refreshed Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Plan this year.

A Women’s Health Plan is also due this year, alongside commitments to improve outcomes for women and close health gaps between ethnic groups.

Minister for Health Innovation James Frith said:

“We want patients to benefit faster from the latest medicines and technologies, while maintaining the highest standards of safety.

“This strategy will help the MHRA keep pace with the latest innovations in AI, data and medicine, while strengthening its ability to crack down on illegal medicines to keep the public safe.

“This will put patients at the heart of regulation, whoever they are and wherever they live — with greater diversity in clinical studies and a Women’s Health Plan to secure better outcomes for women.”

Patient involvement will be most meaningful where it influences the questions developers ask, the outcomes they measure and the judgements made about benefits and risks.

For AI developers, representative evidence should also be treated as central to product quality. Strong overall performance can conceal important differences between patient groups.

The strategy additionally promises substantially greater criminal enforcement capacity and work with social media platforms and online marketplaces to tackle misinformation and prevent harmful products reaching the public.

Chair of Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson welcomed the publication of the MHRA strategy after he recently hosted CEO, Lawrence Tallon in Parliament:

“I welcome the MHRA’s 2030 Strategy and its ambition to help patients benefit sooner from advances in AI, personalised medicines and diagnostics, while maintaining rigorous safety standards.

“The proposed Centre for AI and Digital Health offers an important opportunity to give innovators greater clarity and strengthen confidence in these technologies. Success will depend on connecting regulatory progress with NHS commissioning, procurement and workforce readiness, so that promising innovations reach patients and improve everyday care.

“Through Curia’s work with UKHLSI, we look forward to bringing industry, clinicians and policymakers together to support that ambition”.

A joined-up research system could strengthen the UK’s offer to innovators

The MHRA’s plans sit alongside work to reform clinical trials and improve the digital journey for researchers.

Dr Matt Westmore, Chief Executive at the Health Research Authority, said:

“The MHRA’s new strategy outlines an ambitious plan to reshape regulation for a new era, and the HRA will play a key role in helping to deliver that ambition.

“In the past 12 months alone the MHRA and HRA have delivered the largest overhaul of clinical trials legislation for a generation. The updated regulations further protect trial participants, strengthen patient safety and will help accelerate approvals by reducing unnecessary burdens on researchers.

“Alongside reforms to clinical trials legislation the HRA, MHRA and IRAS Partners have been working to transform the digital end-to-end journey for research in the UK. This transformation will ensure that HRA and MHRA processes are aligned and improve the user journey from application right through to patient enrolment.”

Other commitments include supporting human-relevant new approach methodologies, such as organoids, and developing more flexible, risk-proportionate regulation for rare disease therapies.

Internationally, the MHRA intends to expand reliance and recognition routes with trusted regulators, including collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration and continued recognition of CE-marked devices.

Regulatory Innovation Corridors, leadership of the Access Consortium and an annual regulatory science conference are also intended to strengthen collaboration and reduce duplication.

MHRA Chair Professor Anthony Harnden said:

“Our 2030 Strategy sets out our vision for how we will harness extraordinary scientific and technological advances to catalyse innovation in the life sciences and accelerate access to safe and effective treatments for patients.

“This is an ambition we can only achieve by working together, and I would like to thank patients, healthcare professionals, the life sciences industry and our international counterparts for their continued collaboration and shared commitment to protecting the public.”

The next test is turning regulatory ambition into everyday care

The strategy offers a substantial agenda for modernising the MHRA. Its combination of clearer services, stronger surveillance, patient involvement and dedicated AI capability addresses several practical challenges facing health innovators.

Delivery will require the specialist workforce, data infrastructure and operational capacity to sustain those commitments. Progress should be assessed through measurable improvements in regulatory performance, patient safety and access.

A further question sits beyond the regulator’s direct control: how will the NHS prepare to use the innovations that emerge?

A well-regulated AI product still needs a clear clinical purpose, evidence relevant to its intended setting, workable integration and staff able to use it confidently. Developers also need to understand how regulatory evidence connects with the evidence required by NHS decision-makers.

The opportunity is to build a more coherent route from development to deployment, with responsibilities understood at each stage.

Chief Executive of health innovators trade association, UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), Jo Bekis said:

“The MHRA’s new 2030 Strategy is a positive step toward ensuring regulation keeps pace with advances in AI, personalised medicine and digital health. By focusing on faster access to innovation, and stronger patient involvement, it has the potential to improve outcomes for patients while strengthening the UK’s position as a leader in life sciences.”

Join UKHLSI on 16 November to help shape the AI adoption debate

UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation’s AI Working Group next meets on 16 November, providing an opportunity for members to consider the implications of the MHRA’s strategy and the practical conditions needed for responsible AI adoption.

The proposed Centre for AI and Digital Health, adaptive regulation and greater use of real-world evidence create timely questions for developers, healthcare leaders and policy stakeholders: what guidance will innovators need, how should performance be monitored, and how can regulatory progress translate into improvements for patients?

UKHLSI is inviting organisations interested in contributing to this discussion to register their interest in the AI Working Group and find out more about getting involved ahead of the 16 November meeting.

Turning Quantum Research into Practical Solutions

The Government has announced £50 million for businesses developing quantum technologies, supporting projects intended to improve healthcare, transport, environmental monitoring and national security.

Announced on 13 October, the funding will be delivered through UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) Sensing and Positioning, Navigation and Timing competition. It will help companies build on early testing and develop products for practical use.

Quantum technologies exploit the behaviour of particles, including atoms, to enable highly precise measurements. These capabilities could help address challenges ranging from locating railway faults to providing more accessible medical scans.

Science, Innovation and Investment Minister, Chris McDonald said:

“Quantum has long been an exciting technology, but now real world applications are within our grasp.”

The announcement places particular emphasis on translating research into products, with potential benefits for public services alongside opportunities for business growth and skilled employment.

Bringing Eye and Brain Scans Closer to Patients

Two supported companies are developing diagnostic technologies with potential applications in NHS care.

Siloton Ltd, based in London and Bristol, is developing a handheld eye scanner designed to make advanced diagnostics available beyond specialist hospitals. Smaller, more accessible devices could support screening in community settings and help reduce pressure on hospital services and waiting lists.

Making scans available closer to patients could improve access and support more convenient diagnostic pathways.

In Nottingham, Cerca Magnetics Ltd is working to bring a wearable brain scanner into clinical use, particularly for assessments before surgery for epilepsy.

Professor Michael Lewis, Scientific Director for Innovation at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), said:

“Research into Quantum enabled technologies are at the tipping point of being able to enter care. Early investment by NIHR and UKRI into promising UK innovations is now starting to bear fruit”

His comments highlight the growing opportunity to translate quantum research into clinical tools. For patients and NHS services, the next step will be demonstrating how these technologies can improve diagnosis and access to care.

Both projects illustrate how quantum sensing could contribute to healthcare delivery. Their eventual impact on waiting lists and patient outcomes will depend on clinical validation, adoption and integration into services.

Representing the health innovators sector, Chief Executive of UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), Jo Bekis told Politics UK:

“This is much welcomed news. This funding highlights the potential of quantum innovation to transform diagnostic imaging, bringing world-class scanning technologies closer to the patients who need them most, it also provides innovation companies real opportunity to transform and scale with the right support.”

Finding Railway Faults and Strengthening Navigation

West Midlands-based MoniRail Ltd is developing high-accuracy positioning technology for trains.

Its quantum monitoring system could help identify the precise location of faults in railway tracks and signalling equipment, including where GPS cannot reach. More accurate location information could enable maintenance teams to find and address problems faster, potentially reducing disruption for passengers. The project also aims to support applications in railway signalling infrastructure.

In Oxford, Quantum Fabrix Ltd is developing a next-generation satellite clock for navigation, defence and communications infrastructure.

Accurate timing underpins many systems that people and organisations rely on. The project demonstrates the role quantum technology could play in strengthening the infrastructure supporting transport, connectivity and security.

Supporting Defence, Emergency Response and Environmental Monitoring

Oxfordshire-based ColdQuanta UK Ltd is receiving support to develop a compact, mobile quantum radio system capable of locating signals with high accuracy.

Potential applications include military operational intelligence, protection of critical infrastructure such as airports, and search and rescue. Emergency responders could use the technology to help locate distress signals.

Meanwhile, Wales-based QLM Technology Ltd is developing a camera that can detect and measure greenhouse gases across energy, water and waste infrastructure.

Its project highlights the potential for quantum sensing to support environmental monitoring, helping operators identify emissions and understand where action is needed.

Together, these projects show the breadth of applications being pursued across the UK, from clinical services to infrastructure resilience.

Building British Quantum Supply Chains

Alongside the sensing and positioning funding, UKRI is investing £20 million in UK businesses to develop domestic capability in quantum communication networks.

Through its Enabling Commercial Quantum Networking competition, it will support companies including Sheffield-based Aegiq to develop specialist components, such as lasers and photonic chips.

The investment aims to strengthen UK supply chains and build capability in the components needed to commercialise quantum systems.

Professor Charlotte Deane, UKRI’s Senior Responsible Owner for IS8 Quantum, said the funding would help businesses develop their technologies while retaining essential supply-chain capabilities in the UK. She also highlighted potential benefits for military and emergency services when conventional navigation and communications systems cannot be relied upon.

UKAI Calls for Investment to Match Britain’s Quantum Ambition

Welcoming the announcement, Tim Flagg, Chief Executive of UKAI, called for sustained investment to help Britain retain the economic and strategic benefits of its scientific expertise.

“The UK has spent decades building its quantum advantage, and we welcome the Government’s continued investment in this critical technology. The challenge now is ensuring the scale and pace of investment matches our ambition, as international competition for technology and talent accelerates. We have seen too often how British scientific breakthroughs create industries that scale elsewhere.

“At the intersection of quantum computing and AI, the UK has an opportunity to write a different story, building sovereign capabilities and world-leading businesses. At Quantum Britain on 2 November, we look forward to exploring how we turn this opportunity into lasting economic and strategic advantage.”

His comments underline the commercial challenge behind the announcement: ensuring that support for research translates into companies that can grow in the UK, retain specialist talent and compete internationally.

Developing the Workforce to Deliver Growth

An £8 million expansion of UKRI’s QuEST Apprentices Programme will support training for engineering technicians and specialist quantum technicians.

By 2030, the programme aims to equip 150 apprentices studying engineering subjects with skills to support the growing quantum workforce.

The announcement also coincides with the relaunch of Quantum City, an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council-funded public engagement initiative, with updated resources highlighting training opportunities and career pathways.

The wider policy ambition is to make the UK a world leader in quantum sensing by 2030, supported by up to £2 billion of investment announced earlier this year.

For public services and industry, the next challenge is delivery: demonstrating that these technologies work reliably, can be manufactured at scale and offer measurable improvements. The funding provides an opportunity to connect Britain’s research strengths with the practical needs of patients, passengers, employers and frontline services.

Find out more

To find out more about UKAI and its work on quantum, please click here.

To help members navigate this landscape, UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) is introducing a weekly funding and procurement report. Published each Friday, it will bring together relevant opportunities from across the UK and help members see what is available, who it is for and what action may be needed.

The report will cover grants, funding programmes, innovation competitions, and relevant finance schemes, alongside public-sector procurement opportunities. Its scope reflects the breadth of UKHLSI’s membership and the growing connections between health and care delivery, research, technology, industry and public services.

Opportunities may relate to clinical and health services, life sciences research, and development, medtech, diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing. The report will also cover mental health, social care, prevention, public health, children, and young people, workforce and skills, community and primary care, digital health, and artificial intelligence.

For each opportunity, the report will set out what the scheme or contract supports, who is eligible to apply or bid, and any important requirements around location, partnerships or consortia. Where information is available, it will include the funding or contract value, key dates, current status and a link to the official source. This should help members make an early assessment of whether an opportunity is relevant and what the next step might be.

“Across healthcare, life sciences, mental health and social care, organisations are developing ideas and services that can improve people’s lives. But finding the right funding or procurement opportunity – and understanding how to pursue it – can be a real challenge. Our weekly report is designed to make that search easier for members, while UKHLSI’s tailored bid support can help them assess opportunities, build partnerships and put forward a stronger case.” Jo Bekis, Chief Executive, UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI)

Funding and procurement are different routes to growth, and the report will treat them accordingly. A grant or competition may support research, development, service improvement or adoption. A procurement opportunity is a commercial route for suppliers to provide services, products or solutions to a public-sector buyer. The report makes clear which type of opportunity is being presented, so members can consider the right route for their organisation.

It will also distinguish between open opportunities and early-stage pipeline notices. Some schemes may be newly announced but not yet accepting applications; some research awards may require an eligible academic or NHS partner; and some public funding may be allocated to local authorities rather than available for direct application. These distinctions matter when deciding whether to act immediately, build a partnership or prepare for a future call.

By bringing key information together in one place, UKHLSI aims to help organisations spot relevant opportunities earlier, understand the requirements and consider how a proposal could fit their capabilities and strategic priorities. Each organisation will still need to check the official guidance and assess the opportunity against its own objectives, capacity and eligibility.

UK public funding and procurement opportunities commercial bid support for members

UKHLSI can also help members assess and pursue suitable opportunities. Support can be tailored and may include reviewing eligibility and requirements, considering whether a bid is a good fit, strengthening the proposal’s case for healthcare and patient impact, identifying potential delivery partners, and advising on how to present an organisation’s capabilities to funders and buyers.

Where useful, UKHLSI can help members understand the policy and NHS context behind an opportunity, make relevant connections across its network and identify specialist support for detailed bid development. The scope of support can be agreed with each member according to their needs and the opportunity.

The weekly report is part of UKHLSI’s work to connect members with practical opportunities and support their contribution to better health and care. Members who would like to discuss an opportunity or explore bid support can contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

The UK’s ability to compete in artificial intelligence will depend on more than research, investment, and new technology. It will also depend on whether the country can build the infrastructure AI needs: data centres and advanced computing, secure electricity, timely grid connections, water, resilient digital networks, and a skilled workforce.

At Labour Party Conference, UKAI launched Connected Regions, Competitive Britain: A Devolved Delivery Model for Green AI. The report sets out how the UK can coordinate these needs and turn its AI ambitions into regional investment, stronger domestic capability, and economic growth.

The Government has made progress. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gives greater weight to AI Growth Zones, data centres, and related energy infrastructure. Nationally significant data centres can now enter the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) regime, while Ofgem, and the National Energy System Operator (NESO) are working on reforms to the electricity connections process.

But UKAI argues that these initiatives remain fragmented. The AI Energy Council and the joint Ofgem–NESO connections programme each address parts of the challenge, but no single body is responsible for bringing together planning, energy, water, connectivity, skills, and regional delivery.

The scale of the connections challenge is growing. Ofgem figures cited by UKAI show grid demand applications rising from 41GW to 125GW in less than a year, with data centres accounting for at least 70GW of the queue. Planning consent, the report argues, does not guarantee an electricity connection, affordable power, adequate water, reliable fibre or trained workers. Nor does it ensure that a new facility will support local industries, jobs or AI adoption by businesses, and public services.

From national ambition to regional delivery

The report’s main argument is that AI infrastructure should be treated as connected economic infrastructure, rather than as a series of individual property developments. Decisions about where computing capacity is built need to reflect where energy is available, the strengths of regional industries and the infrastructure that can be shared.

Data centres and advanced computing can support sectors beyond digital technology, including life sciences, advanced manufacturing, defence, financial and professional services. Regional plans could connect these needs with local universities, businesses, skills provision and infrastructure, while helping British firms win contracts and scale their capabilities.

UKAI proposes a clearer division of responsibilities. Central government should set a national Green AI mission, establish environmental and security standards, coordinate national infrastructure, and provide access to strategic finance. Mayoral authorities should turn national priorities into regional programmes by assessing demand and infrastructure, identifying suitable sites, aligning skills provision, and building investable project pipelines.

Devolution, the report cautions, must come with the expertise, funding and influence needed to deliver. Giving regions planning responsibilities without the resources to coordinate energy, water, connectivity and investment risks shifting fragmentation from Whitehall to local government.

Five priorities for government

The report sets out 18 recommendations and five immediate priorities:

1. adopt Green AI as a national mission;
2. establish a cross-government AI Infrastructure Delivery Unit;
3. publish a dedicated National Policy Statement for data centres;
4. require mayoral strategic authorities to prepare regional AI infrastructure plans;
5. introduce common Green AI performance standards for major projects.

The proposed delivery unit would bring together government departments, regulators and delivery bodies to resolve barriers that fall between areas of responsibility. UKAI is urging the Government to use the Autumn Budget on 28 October to establish the unit and give mayors the technical teams and long-term finance needed to deliver infrastructure in their regions.

The National Policy Statement would provide a joined-up framework covering energy, water, connectivity, security, environmental performance and community benefit. Regional plans would assess credible demand for computing capacity alongside suitable land, grid and water capacity, renewable generation, storage, connectivity, workforce needs and opportunities to reuse heat.

To finance delivery, UKAI recommends enabling regions to establish investment vehicles that bring together devolved revenues, public finance and private investment. These could support shared substations, storage, water systems, fibre routes and heat networks serving multiple projects and nearby communities. The report also proposes regional delivery teams to provide developers and investors with a single point of contact.

Making growth work for places and the energy system

The report argues that infrastructure projects should be assessed not only by the electricity they consume, but also by their contribution to the energy system and the communities where they are built. Facilities located near surplus renewable generation could help make better use of clean power. Flexible computing workloads, storage, and local balancing could also help manage demand and network constraints while protecting consumer affordability.

UKAI says stronger environmental standards are needed. Data centre developers are not currently required to report consistently on power usage effectiveness, water usage effectiveness or carbon intensity. The report calls for common measures for major projects, including energy and water efficiency, carbon intensity, clean-energy use, grid flexibility and waste-heat reuse.

It also recommends a community-benefit framework covering local employment, apprenticeships, connectivity, environmental improvements, public infrastructure and community investment. Early, open engagement matters: communities hosting new infrastructure need to understand its effects and see a tangible benefit. Trust, the report argues, is a condition for securing the local support needed to deliver projects on time.

The report was developed with UKAI’s Infrastructure Working Group, chaired by Lorraine Mackin, Deloitte’s Vice Chair for Sustainability and Infrastructure, with input from Energy Minister Michael Shanks MP.

Measuring progress by delivery

The main tests for UKAI in measuring success are whether projects secure grid connections, attract investment, enter construction, and create demonstrable regional value. That value should include jobs and skills, efficient use of energy and water, support for the electricity system, stronger local industries, and improve public confidence.

UKAI argues that the UK does not need to compete by pursuing the greatest possible volume of computing capacity. It can build an advantage by deploying AI infrastructure efficiently and responsibly, connecting it to clean energy and regional economic strengths, and supporting British firms to develop sovereign AI capabilities.

The UK has research expertise, renewable generation, engineering capability, and globally important financial markets. The challenge is to coordinate them – something successive governments have failed to deliver effectively. A national mission, accountable cross-government leadership, and regions equipped to plan and finance delivery could make Green AI a source of lasting industrial capacity and economic growth.

The report’s conclusion is that national strategy and devolution need to work together. A coherent national direction, matched with well-resourced regional delivery, can help the UK build the infrastructure its AI economy needs.

Find out more about UKAI

To find out more about becoming a member of UKAI, please click here.

The review, chaired by British psychoanalyst and clinical psychologist Professor Peter Fonagy, says the rise in ADHD and autism diagnoses needs careful consideration. However, it found that the population-level prevalence of the two neurodevelopmental conditions appears broadly stable.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Fonagy said former health secretary Wes Streeting was “with respect, completely wrong” to suggest there was an overdiagnosis of mental health disorders. The review found that distress among young people had increased, with anxiety and depression contributing to the rise.

It identifies several possible factors, including social media, financial insecurity, uncertainty about the future, poorer sleep and reduced feelings of connection and belonging. The report also warns that diagnosis has increasingly become a narrow route through which people seek support for complex needs.

“Diagnosis remains essential and must be protected – what has to change is that it is no longer the only door through which help can be reached,” Fonagy said.

Government promises earlier support

The Government says its forthcoming Mental Health Strategy will focus on prevention and early intervention, with support available in schools, colleges and communities without people having to wait for a clinical diagnosis.

Health and Social Care Secretary Yvette Cooper said the review showed the importance of earlier help for mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions.

“It is clear that mental health services need to change to focus more on the early support young people need to stay in education or work or keep their lives on track,” she said.

The Government has asked NHS leaders to examine how people can access advice, assessment and treatment more easily. Its announced measures include expanding Mental Health Support Teams to every school and college by 2029, reaching nearly 800,000 additional children and young people this year, and investing £7 million in Early Support Hubs in 2026/27.

It also plans to extend support in the early years and invest in specialists who can work with children in mainstream schools, early years settings and colleges. These measures will sit alongside a £4 billion package for children with special educational needs, which the Government says will improve inclusion, widen access to specialist support and provide training for teachers.

Tighter oversight of ADHD and autism assessments

Alongside earlier support, the Government plans to strengthen oversight of ADHD and autism assessments. It is working towards making all diagnostic assessments a Care Quality Commission-regulated activity, covering NHS-funded, private and self-funded assessments.

The review raised concerns about the consistency and quality of assessments, particularly where services are provided independently. Fonagy said national standards were needed, while recognising that some independent providers deliver excellent services.

The Government will ask the Advertising Standards Authority to consider advertising for ADHD and autism services. NHS England plans to consult on a national tariff for NHS-funded services, covering assessment, post-diagnostic support and follow-ups, with new payment arrangements intended from April 2027. The Government will also work with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to consider the implications of the review for clinical guidance.

Cooper said regulation should help ensure assessments are high quality and that the NHS is not overcharged by independent or private providers.

Fonagy Review suggests support should reflect needs, not labels

The review warns that a diagnosis can sometimes become a label that overshadows a person’s strengths and potential, affecting their experience in education, work and relationships. It calls for better support after diagnosis and for schools, workplaces and public services to respond to people’s needs.

Mental health organisations broadly welcomed the review’s focus on earlier help. Andy Bell, chief executive of the Centre for Mental Health, said:

“More people, and young people especially, are experiencing mental distress and ill health.”

He said the Government’s new strategy was an opportunity to put the recommendations into practice, adding that local government, the NHS, businesses and civil society all had a role in improving mental health.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists also welcomed the emphasis on support before diagnosis, while warning that long waits for assessment and specialist treatment must be addressed. Its president, Professor Subodh Dave, said:

“Those showing initial signs of distress shouldn’t need a diagnosis to access basic levels of support at school, work or within their communities.”

The review highlights the links between health, education and employment. It notes that mental health or autism is a factor for many young people who are not in education, employment or training. Fonagy argues that success should be measured by people’s wellbeing and ability to participate in their communities, education and work—not simply by whether they receive a diagnosis.

The test will be delivery

The review sets out a shift towards support that is earlier, more flexible and based on need, while retaining timely diagnosis and treatment for people who need them. The Government has announced a range of measures, but its full response will be set out in the Mental Health Strategy later this year.

The test will be whether these commitments translate into accessible help in schools and communities, shorter waits for assessment and treatment, and properly supported specialist services. Earlier help should widen the route into care; it must also be matched by the capacity and expertise to support people with complex or severe needs.

The review and the Government’s announced reforms apply to England.

To find out more about UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) Mental Health Working Group, please contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk

Businesses at the centre of AI policy

Dr Ben Spencer MP, Shadow Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology, has urged businesses developing artificial intelligence to help inform Conservative policy, arguing that politicians must understand the industry’s work if they are to support its growth and scrutinise government effectively.

Addressing an industry audience at Conservative Party Conference, Dr Spencer thanked those who had provided advice, introductions and support as he took on the AI brief.

He framed engagement with businesses as central to his approach, arguing that policy should begin with an understanding of how the technology is being developed and used.

“Government doesn’t make AI – businesses, you guys, make AI.”

He encouraged companies to contact him directly, inviting feedback on both his own work and the areas where the Opposition should challenge ministers.

“Please get in contact with me if you haven’t spoken to me already, so you can tell me when I’m doing something right, when I’m doing something wrong, and where we need to be challenging things,” he said.

The invitation positioned industry engagement as a source of practical evidence for both parliamentary scrutiny and the development of the Conservatives’ own AI agenda.

Challenging the Government’s AI responsibilities

Dr Spencer directed his strongest criticism at the organisation of AI responsibilities across government.

He told the audience that he had asked an unnamed AI tool to produce an organogram showing the Government’s AI departments, responsibilities, and reporting arrangements.

Describing the result, he said it showed “a complete mess and a shambles”, suggesting that businesses were struggling to navigate the structures around them.

His remarks were a political criticism of government organisation, rather than a detailed assessment of individual departments or their performance. However, they identified clarity of responsibility as an issue he intended to pursue through his shadow brief.

Dr Spencer said his immediate task was to keep government grounded in the realities facing the sector while working with Conservative colleagues to develop the party’s policy.

“My primary task is to try to get Government to stay real.”

He referred to developing “some really cool ideas”, but did not announce specific proposals, funding commitments or regulatory changes in these remarks.

Shaping the future, rather than simply predicting it

Alongside his criticism of government, Dr Spencer offered an optimistic account of Britain’s potential.

Describing himself as a science-fiction enthusiast, he spoke about the influence of author Isaac Asimov, whose work he had read in his late teens.

He loosely paraphrased an idea he attributed to Asimov: that thinking about the future should involve imagining the future people want and working to create it.

For Dr Spencer, AI represented the beginning of a substantial change whose longer-term consequences remained uncertain.

“We genuinely have no idea what is going to happen over the next five or ten years, let alone twenty or thirty years,” he said.

Nevertheless, he argued that uncertainty should not prevent Britain from acting. He described the country as well placed to benefit, provided businesses had the conditions they needed to develop and compete.

“If we can make sure we have the right business and economic environment, we can grab this opportunity, become competitive and drive growth.”

His closing message placed responsibility for turning that potential into results firmly with the businesses in the room: “You guys are going to make this happen.”

Final thought: turning engagement into a credible programme

Dr Spencer’s remarks set out his plans to listen to businesses, challenge unclear government responsibilities, and focus on competitiveness. That gives the Conservatives a starting point, but the test will be whether industry engagement produces clear choices on investment, infrastructure, skills, adoption, and proportionate regulation.

His criticism of government organisation will carry greater weight if accompanied by an explanation of how his party would make accountability clearer and delivery more effective. For the sector, the opportunity is to turn his invitation to engage into specific proposals that connect Britain’s AI capabilities with measurable economic and public benefit.

(Photo: Christine Quarmyne/CCHQ)

The letter signed by chair of the Obesity Working Group and former Deputy National Medical Director at NHS England Professor Mike Bewick, former Minister of State for Health at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Chair of Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, Chief Executive of UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) Jo Bekis, and former Director General of Communications at the Department of Health under former Secretaries of State including Rt Hon Alan Milburn and Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Sian Jarvis CB, urges the Chancellor to prioritise multi-year funding, a joint DHSC–Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) programme and independent evaluation to test the health and economic value of integrated obesity pathways. It follows the 2026 Parliamentary Obesity Summit and its report, From Access to Outcomes: Building the Treasury and Delivery Case for Integrated Obesity Care.

The policy institute and innovators membership body argue that the policy question has moved on from whether treatments are available to how the health system can deliver sustained, equitable outcomes – and how government can assess the value of doing so.

A cross-government case for investment

The letter seen by Politics UK says obesity care should be considered across health, social care, employment, productivity, welfare, and inequalities. The costs and benefits are spread across these areas, meaning that the organisation funding an intervention may not be the one that later sees the savings or wider benefits.

To illustrate the scale of that challenge, it cites work in West Yorkshire, Humber, and North Yorkshire which estimated the annual regional cost of obesity at £6.16 billion. This included £683 million in NHS treatment, £2.84 billion in productivity losses, £1.58 billion in social care and £1.05 billion in wider economic impacts.

Curia and UKHLSI are calling on the Treasury to establish a cross-government investment framework and a joint Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Work and Pensions “invest-to-work” fund. The proposed fund would support pathways intended to help people remain in or return to employment, with outcomes measured through health, economic inactivity, sickness absence, and productivity.

The request builds on Curia’s 2025 work on obesity policy, which called for recognition of obesity as a chronic, relapsing condition and for long-term investment in care. Since then, the letter notes, government and industry have committed funding to new obesity pathways. The task now is to turn that momentum into sustained outcomes and demonstrable public value.

From access to whole-pathway care

The summit report argues that access to medicines alone will not deliver those outcomes. Obesity is linked to cardiovascular, renal, metabolic and mental health needs, while services can remain divided by different tiers, thresholds, budgets and data systems.

The letter warns that short programmes are poorly suited to a long-term condition. It calls for pathways that combine clinical treatment with psychological, behavioural, digital, and community support – including maintenance and routes back into care.

Community organisations, pharmacies, workplaces and regulated digital providers could help extend access and capacity, the letter says. Their contribution should sit within transparent clinical governance, shared standards and independent evaluation.

Funding to test what works

Curia and UKHLSI are asking for multi-year “invest-to-save” funding so local systems can test integrated, trauma-informed pathways, build workforce capability, and involve community partners without relying on short-term pilots.

They also propose funding independent economic modelling and real-world evaluation using a common dataset. The assessment should separate cash-releasing savings from capacity benefits, costs avoided in future and wider public value.

The letter stresses that the case should be tested rigorously, rather than relying on claims of immediate savings:

“We are not asking Treasury to accept untested claims that every intervention will immediately pay for itself. We are asking it to create the conditions for a disciplined test of affordability, implementation, and return.”

The proposed programme would identify priority groups transparently, establish a credible comparison with what would happen without intervention, and measure clinical, service, workforce, patient-reported and equity outcomes. The signatories say findings should be published even where results are negative or inconclusive.

A route from local delivery to national decisions

The final request is for funding to support a route to wider adoption: a national minimum service standard, a business case and commissioning toolkit for integrated care systems, and a clear decision point on whether approaches should be scaled.

The letter says this would allow the Treasury and NHS to judge where investment produces the greatest benefit, for whom and over what period. It also offers Curia and UKHLSI’s ability to convene clinical leaders, NHS systems, people with lived experience, community organisations, regulated providers, and industry around an independently governed programme.

Find out more

The full report, From Access to Outcomes, sets out the findings of the Parliamentary Obesity Summit and the proposed Strategic Innovation Gateway programme. To discuss the Obesity Working Group or Gateway programme, contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

(Photo: Kirsty O’Connor/HM Treasury)

The NHS must find ways to meet growing demand for healthcare, Damian Hinds has said, arguing that technology could help clinicians do more for patients.

Addressing a panel at the Conservative Party Conference on 5 October, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said the expectation that the health service would return to manageable pressure once it had cleared its backlog had not been borne out.

The pressures on the NHS reflect longer-term changes in health and life expectancy, he said. People are living longer, but more are living with chronic and multiple conditions, often requiring treatment over many years. While medical advances have improved outcomes, some treatments are also more costly.

Hinds noted that the UK spends about 11 per cent of GDP on healthcare, broadly comparable with countries including Australia, Canada, France, and Japan. Real-terms spending per head is about twice what it was in 1990, he said, yet demand continues to press against the finite capacity of the health and care workforce.

Technology should give clinicians more time with patients

Hinds argued that new technologies could help shift those constraints by enabling health professionals to do more on behalf of patients. He pointed to the UK’s universities, life sciences industry and technology sector as strengths, alongside the NHS’s national reach and its extensive longitudinal data.

The examples discussed by the panel included faster diagnostics at Moorfields, generative AI tools that could shorten the design and testing of drugs, and personalised medicine informed by genomic data. Hinds also highlighted AI scribe tools, which can reduce the administrative burden on clinicians and give them more time to focus on the person in front of them.

Technology could also support people to live at home for longer and retain greater control over their care, he said. The value of these tools, in his view, lies in how they improve the work of health professionals and the experience of patients, rather than in the technology itself.

Past failures underline the need for careful delivery

Hinds said the opportunities should be pursued alongside a clear understanding of the risks. He invoked the NHS National Programme for IT, which he described as poorly designed and insufficiently informed by frontline staff before it was abandoned at a cost of £10 billion. He also recalled the loss of two discs containing the child benefit database, including bank details.

Those experiences should prompt stronger safeguards, he said, rather than deter the NHS from adopting new tools. Cyber criminals are now a persistent threat, making data security a central consideration in any modernisation programme.

The challenge, Hinds argued, is not simply whether technology exists. Organisations also need the systems and equipment to support it, as well as a culture that is willing to change working practices. That challenge is particularly significant in the NHS, given its size and complexity.

Conservative health team to develop principles

Hinds said the Conservative shadow health team would scrutinise the Government’s approach while developing its own prospectus for the next election. Technology, he said, cuts across the team’s policy areas, from hospital care and primary care to public health, mental health, social care, life sciences and research.

The team would hear from experts, clinicians and technology leaders as it works out the principles that should guide deployment. One priority, he said, is to ensure that technology is not seen by frontline staff as creating more work. It should improve the time and attention available to patients.

He also said effective partnerships would be needed across the public, private, independent and not-for-profit sectors, with the UK looking internationally to work with leaders in the field. Patient safety must be the overriding priority, he said, with data security and privacy treated as essential parts of that commitment.

Conservative Party Conference summary: a choice between waiting and leading

Hinds concluded that the UK could choose to be a “second mover”, waiting to see how other countries use these technologies before adopting them, or build on its existing strengths and act sooner.

The NHS’s national scale and data, together with the country’s universities, life sciences and technology sectors, put Britain in a strong position to pursue the opportunities, he said. The task for government and health leaders is to make sure innovation is introduced in a way that works for patients and the people caring for them.

Hinds’ remarks set out a case for faster adoption, paired with practical attention to workforce experience, implementation and public trust. The measure of success, he argued, will be whether technology helps the NHS deliver better care.

(Photo: Conservative Party)

Henry Snowdon

Politics UK – Polling and Data Editor

British politics is normally described through stories: momentum, collapse, comebacks, insurgencies and the endless question of who had a “good week”. The problem is that a good story is not necessarily a true one.

This series is my attempt to look at political change through a quantitative lens. Each month, I will use polling, electoral results and statistical modelling to ask not only what has changed, but where it has changed, among whom, why it has changed and why it might matter when votes are converted into seats. I will also examine the political events behind shifts in public attitudes. Numbers without context can mislead just as easily as commentary without evidence.

This series will run in tandem with a much larger long-term project: the creation of the most extensive electoral database of British politics possible. This database will power a model which Politics UK will host in an interactive format so you can understand what political changes mean at every level.

That model is not ready yet. For now, this column will use the parts that are ready to produce a monthly snapshot of British politics. This first edition presents my initial forecast, briefly examines the current political moment and places a particular focus on changing patterns of tactical voting.

With that said, here is the first forecast.

If An Election Were Held Today…

The modelled projection covers the 632 constituencies in Great Britain. The parliamentary totals also include Northern Ireland’s 18 seats, carried forward separately. The central finding is that if an election were held today, Labour would comfortably win the most seats but still be well short of a majority.

Labour 27.0% • 264 seats

Reform UK 23.7% • 151 seats

Conservative 20.4% • 107 seats

Liberal Democrats 10.2% • 44 seats

Green 10.2% • 3 seats

SNP 2.9% • 46 seats

Restore Britain 3.7% • 1 seat

Northern Ireland • 18 seats

Plaid Cymru 1.1% • 8 seats

Independent 0.9% • 7 seats

Speaker • 1 seat

TLDR

Burnham changes the game

Labour are now in the lead.

Farage fumbles the ball

Reform is bleeding support in all directions but still on course to displace the Tories as the main force on the right.

Tactical voting is key

In a first-past-the-post system with five or six parties competing, who you are voting against is as important as who you are voting for. Labour is both more popular and less unpopular, Reform are losing support and crystallising opposition. This will be a key dynamic at the next election.

Labour: a Burnham half-bounce

Labour has now established a clear lead in the opinion polls. Its current projected vote share is 27.0%, giving it a 3.3-point lead over Reform. The party is projected to win 264 seats, making it comfortably the largest party in Parliament, albeit without an overall majority.

For months, Labour experienced continuous decline followed by stagnation, eventually bottoming out at roughly 17.3% in May 2026, its lowest sustained level of this parliament. It began to recover following Starmer’s resignation, with this recovery accelerating after Burnham entered Downing Street on 20 July and his so-called honeymoon phase began.

Even from the 20.8% Labour was polling shortly before Burnham became prime minister, the party has gained more than six points.

The biggest source of Burnham’s new coalition is simply the return of people who voted Labour in 2024. In the 30-day average ending on 22 June, only around 55.5% of 2024 Labour voters said they would vote for the party again. By late September, that figure had risen to 67.5%.

Over the same period, Labour-to-Green movement fell from 14.0% to 8.9%, Labour-to-Reform from 11.7% to 8.9%, and Labour-to-Liberal Democrat from 8.6% to 5.6%.

Labour is also gaining support from voters outside its 2024 coalition. The proportion of 2024 Liberal Democrat voters now choosing Labour has roughly doubled, rising from 6.1% to 11.9%.

Among 2024 Green voters, it has risen from 3.9% to 11.7%. Among previous non-voters, it has climbed from 12.0% to 18.7%. Movement from those who voted for right-wing parties in 2024 has been much more limited.

One of Labour’s biggest improvements, however, has come in tactical-voting contests. In February, YouGov gave Labour only a four-point advantage over Reform in Labour versus Reform contests. By September, Labour’s advantage had increased to fifteen points.

The improvement extends across other contests as well. Labour’s advantage over the Conservatives has increased from approximately one point to seven. Against the Greens, Labour has gone from losing by ten points to leading by six. Against the Liberal Democrats, Labour has moved from an eight-point deficit to a seven-point lead.

All of this suggests that Burnham has made the Labour brand much less disliked and, consequently, a far more acceptable vehicle for tactical voting.

Finally, I want to ensure that the effect of the Burnham bounce is not overstated. Labour is polling at 27%, a figure that would be considered very low by the standards of the postwar era. The party is not projected to win a majority, nor is it certain that its polling lead will continue to grow. There is already some early evidence of stagnation. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that the change in leadership has been the leading cause of the change in Labour’s political fortunes.

Reform: Loss of Momentum

Reform remains a huge electoral force, easily outpolling its 2024 performance, but it has seen a steep decline since early this year.

From around May 2025 until February 2026, Reform’s polling share bounced between the high twenties and low thirties. Since late February, however, the party has experienced a sustained decline from which it has not recovered, despite some brief improvements along the way.

The model’s current headline estimate is 23.7%, a fall of about 6.8 points from the roughly 30.5% Reform was polling when the decline began. As it stands, I see three primary catalysts for Reform’s decline this year.

Restore

The first is the launch of Restore Britain as a political party in February. Many within Reform had grown dissatisfied with how the party was handling questions around immigration and demographic change, its perceived pivot towards the centre, Farage’s reluctance to engage with popular far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and the increasing number of former Conservative politicians entering the party.

Restore gave these dissenters a home around which to organise. Following the announcement of Restore’s launch, Reform experienced its first sustained loss of polling support since this Parliament began, while Restore began polling at around 3% once data became available.

Today, Restore is polling at 3.7% nationally. While it would be false to say that all of these voters would otherwise be supporting Reform, a close inspection of the data, combined with the parties’ ideological alignment, suggests that much of its support has come from groups that Reform previously relied upon, including 2024 Reform voters and previous non-voters. It is therefore difficult to deny that Restore’s rise has had an outsized direct effect on Reform this year. However, its indirect effect may be even larger.

Some of Reform’s most active members left for Restore, taking with them some of the enthusiasm, momentum and sense of inevitability that Reform appeared to possess for much of the previous year. These effects are less tangible, but in future editions I will show how this period also saw a measurable decline in enthusiasm for Reform, which is difficult to separate entirely from the rise of Restore.

Starmergeddon

The second catalyst was Starmer’s resignation. Starmer was historically unpopular, and that unpopularity drove many voters towards opposition parties. His resignation weakened the anti-Labour vote, while many of Labour’s 2024 voters, particularly in the north of England where Burnham is more popular, began returning to the party.

In the 30-day polling average ending on the day of his resignation, 55.5% of 2024 Labour voters said they would vote Labour again. By late September, that figure had risen to approximately 67.5%. Over the same period, the proportion moving from Labour to Reform fell by around 3 points.

Next month, I shall examine a third reason for Reform’s decline in greater depth: the increasing unpopularity of Nigel Farage. This has coincided with greater scrutiny of his finances, including investigations and questions concerning undeclared gifts and donations, as well as the widely criticised decision to resign his seat in Clacton and trigger a by-election.

Greens: Surge to Squeeze

The Greens are also doing much worse than they were only a few months ago. The current forecast puts them on 10.2% nationally, down more than six points from their April peak of roughly 16.3%.

It is clear from the data that many voters who were alienated by Starmer moved to the Greens, while previously disengaged voters, especially younger people, began to rally around the party after Polanski became leader and momentum built around him. Since then, however, two things have happened.

Firstly, and most obviously, Starmer resigned. As previously discussed, Burnham has been popular with progressive voters, siphoning back many people who had moved from Labour to the Greens primarily because they disliked Starmer.

Secondly, Zack Polanski has become less popular. This is something I will explore more fully next month when I examine leadership approval ratings, but it appears to have reduced enthusiasm for the party. Among people who did not vote in 2024, Green support has fallen from a peak of approximately 23.3% to 13.7%. Among voters aged 18 to 24, it has fallen even further, from approximately 42.7% to 28%.

The Holborn and St Pancras by-election will be a major test for the Greens. If they lose, as I and the betting markets currently expect, the scale of that defeat will matter. A narrow loss in a historically safe Labour seat would represent a failure compared with the expectations of a few months ago but would not be a disaster.

A more significant defeat, particularly one in which the Greens fall clearly below the roughly 29% support they achieved across the constituency area in the 2026 council elections, could produce further polling declines and raise questions about Polanski’s leadership.

Either way, the clear relationship between the Burnham bounce and the steep decline in Green support makes one question the wisdom of the party’s decision to run only a scaled-back campaign against him in Makerfield. That decision helped Burnham enter Parliament and begin the political recovery that the Green leadership may now pay for dearly in only a few weeks.

Enjoying the analysis? Why not share it with someone so you can discuss!

Share

Liberal Democrats: Losing Votes, Holding Ground

The Liberal Democrats are currently projected to win 10.2% of the vote, which is 2.0 points lower than they won in 2024 and 4.4 points below their peak of roughly 14.6% in July 2025. This is the lowest level at which they have consistently polled during this parliament.

As with the Greens, the rise of Andy Burnham has created a direct challenge to the party’s popularity, and the vote-transfer data demonstrate this. In the 30-day average ending on Starmer’s resignation day, around 6.1% of 2024 Liberal Democrat voters intended to vote Labour. By late September, that figure had risen to approximately 11.9%.

While my model projects the Liberal Democrats to retain most of their seats, returning 44 MPs, it still has them losing 28 of the 72 constituencies they won in 2024. It’s important to note that this model does not yet include a robust local-persistence/incumbency mechanism. Future versions will make greater use of recent local-election results to estimate continuing organisational strength within individual constituencies. This should improve estimates of concentrated Liberal Democrat support and may result in a higher projected seat total for the party.

Seventeen are lost to the Conservatives, nine to Reform and two to the SNP. Ten of these defeats are by less than five percentage points, showing how a relatively small national decline can produce much larger parliamentary losses when so many seats are marginal.

These losses are not only caused by weaker national polling. They also reflect a decline in the Liberal Democrats’ advantage in tactical contests against the Conservatives. In YouGov’s February 2026 experiment, the Liberal Democrats led the Conservatives by eight points, 34% to 26%, when respondents were told that only those two parties could realistically win. By September, that advantage had narrowed to only three points, 31% to 28%. This suggests that the heavy anti-Conservative tactical voting seen during the last parliament has weakened now that the Conservatives are no longer in government.

Conservatives: Stagnation and Recovery?

There is not much interesting to say about the Conservatives’ headline polling fortunes. For most of this year, they polled between roughly 17.5% and 19.5%, before rising to the model’s current estimate of 20.4%.

Most of this improvement has occurred over the past few months and appears to reflect Reform’s decline and the gradual return of some 2024 Conservative voters. Conservative retention has increased from around 61.2% at Reform’s polling peak to 67.6% today, while the proportion of 2024 Conservative voters intending to vote Reform has fallen from 30.3% to 22.9%.

Not Farage

There are, however, a few pieces of underlying data that should give the party some optimism. The first is tactical voting. Anti-Conservative tactical voting has weakened, while the Conservatives are increasingly winning tactical contests against Reform, even among progressive voters.

In February 2025, voters preferred the Conservatives to Reform by only one point when told that those were the only two parties capable of winning their constituency. By February 2026, that advantage had increased to seven points. It now stands at fifteen points, with the Conservatives leading Reform by 35% to 20%.

This advantage is strengthened by support from progressive voters. In a Conservative versus Reform contest, 43% of Labour voters, 49% of Liberal Democrat voters and 26% of Green voters say they would vote Conservative to stop Reform from winning.

The second reason for Conservative optimism is the marginality of Conservative-Reform contests. There are currently 60 constituencies in which the Conservatives and Reform are the leading pair and are separated by no more than five percentage points. In an environment where tactical voting is becoming increasingly favourable to the Conservatives, having so many marginal contests creates significant opportunities for future seat gains.

Overall, the Conservatives are in a much better position than they were a year ago. Reform’s decline offers a potential path to once again becoming the biggest party on the right of British politics. Nevertheless, if an election were held today, they would still finish firmly behind Reform. They therefore remain at risk of following other traditionally dominant, big-tent parties of the European right that have been overtaken by populist challengers and struggled to regain their former relevance.

The Numbers Game

Burnham bounce: The overwhelming story of the current moment is the transformation of the polling landscape brought about by Andy Burnham’s premiership. Labour is now leading in the polls and would win the most seats if an election were held tomorrow. Its recovery in national support has come primarily at the expense of the Liberal Democrats and Greens.

Farage fumble: Reform has struggled this year because of the rise of Restore Britain, the arrival of Burnham and the decline in Farage’s personal popularity. Farage no longer looks like the inevitable prime minister-in-waiting that he once did. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have begun to recover some former voters and are benefiting from a tactical-voting environment that has become increasingly hostile to Reform.

Tactical voting: Outside the headline figures, Burnham’s arrival has altered how voters behave when forced to choose between the parties most likely to win their constituency. Labour has become a more acceptable tactical option for Liberal Democrat and Green voters, while even some progressive voters are prepared to support the Conservatives when the alternative is Reform. These changes matter enormously in an election where dozens of seats are separated by only a few percentage points.

Strap in: Britain is experiencing one of its most volatile political moments in history. Labour is projected to win only 27% of the vote and 264 seats, leaving it well short of a parliamentary majority. Reform remains a major electoral force, the Conservatives are still on life support, and smaller parties continue to command an unusually large share of the vote. In such a volatile environment, small movements in public opinion, tactical behaviour or local organisation could still produce enormous changes in the final result.

As you have probably gathered, a lot of work goes into this model. Subcribe to help us keep this sustainable!

How the Model Works

The model uses national polling, election results and demographic analysis to project vote shares in each constituency and convert them into seats. It begins with the 2024 general-election result and estimates how different groups of 2024 voters now intend to vote using recent recalled-vote polling.

It then adjusts the geographic distribution of those votes using age, region, constituency demographics and evidence from recent local and devolved elections.

Finally, it applies cautious adjustments for tactical voting, strong local campaigns, prominent independent candidates and recent by-election results, before bringing the constituency totals back into line with the national polling figures.

Model Source

Forecast vote shares, seat totals, constituency margins, projected Liberal Democrat losses and the count of close Conservative–Reform contests are the author’s calculations from the locked Westminster projection, with a reference date of 28 September 2026. Publication date: 5 October 2026.

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Effective treatments for obesity are available, and national policy is moving. However, a recent Parliamentary summit and report questions whether people can access the right support at the right time, and whether services can sustain that support over the long-term.

Drawing on its 2026 Parliamentary Obesity Summit, a new report from policy institute Curia, commissioned by UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), sets out how to meet that challenge. From Access to Outcomes brings together views from clinicians, NHS and local government leaders, policymakers, industry, community organisations and people with lived experience. It turns those discussions into a programme for better care and a stronger economic case for investment.

The report’s central argument is that obesity care cannot be judged by medicines costs or short-term weight change alone. Its value should be assessed through a wider set of outcomes: cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic health; service use; mental wellbeing; patient safety and trust; workforce participation; inequalities; and the long-term cost of inaction.

UKHLSI Chief Executive Jo Bekis puts the emphasis on implementation:

“The next challenge is implementation.”

Care designed around people and pathways

The summit heard that obesity is a chronic, relapsing condition, often connected to cardiovascular, renal, metabolic and mental health needs. Yet services are frequently organised in separate tiers, with different thresholds, budgets, referral routes, and data systems.

For patients, that can mean delays, repeated assessments, and gaps between services. Short-term programmes can also sit uneasily alongside a condition that may require continuing support, maintenance, and the ability to return to care when circumstances change.

The report calls for integrated pathways that bring together clinical treatment, behavioural and psychological support, digital care, and community-based help. They should be personalised to people’s needs and circumstances, with clear routes between neighbourhood teams, pharmacies, specialist services, and trusted community organisations.

That means widening the idea of where care happens. The summit heard examples of health support delivered in places such as pubs, barber shops, workplaces and community settings – reaching people who may not engage with conventional services. These partners need to be connected to safe clinical pathways and properly supported.

Dr Rani Khatib, National Specialty Adviser for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at NHS England, summed up the principle:

“Manage people, do not manage conditions.”

Trust and safety are part of effective care

The report highlights the way people experience care affects whether they seek help, engage with treatment, and return when they need further support.

Summit participants described how stigma, blame and previous difficult experiences can undermine trust before treatment even begins. The report cites the Numan State of Obesity Report 2025, which found that 68 per cent of surveyed people living with overweight or obesity had felt judged by a healthcare professional because of their weight.

“The cost of doing nothing is the human cost.”

Emm Irving, former Head of Improving Population Health, West Yorkshire Health and Care Partnership

Trauma-informed, non-stigmatising practice is therefore both an ethical responsibility and a practical part of designing effective services. The report recommends that pathways monitor whether people feel listened to, respected and safe, alongside clinical outcomes and service activity.

It also calls for maintenance and re-entry to be treated as parts of care, not signs of failure. A pathway should give people continuity and a route back to support without making them start again from the beginning.

Making an honest economic case

The summit examined why investment in prevention and earlier care can be difficult to secure. Costs may fall to one organisation, while benefits emerge later or elsewhere – in fewer hospital admissions, reduced social care demand, improved workforce participation, lower sickness absence, or stronger productivity.

The report calls for a Treasury-facing case that is transparent about where value arises and when. It recommends distinguishing between cash-releasing savings, capacity freed up for other care, future costs avoided, and wider economic and social benefits. It also argues for realistic time horizons and scenario analysis, rather than promising that every intervention will immediately pay for itself.

To build that case, the report proposes a common outcomes framework covering clinical measures, service use, patient experience, treatment sustainability, workforce, and economic outcomes, equity, and delivery costs. Weight change can be one measure but should not define success on its own.

Evidence should be built through delivery. Strategic Innovation Gateways would bring local NHS systems and their partners together to assess readiness, design pathways, agree measures and evaluate what works under real-world conditions. A small number of demonstrators could help show which approaches benefit which groups, at what cost and over what timescale.

The report proposes a 12–18-month programme combining local demonstrations with national evidence, workforce learning, community partnership and policy development. Its intended outputs include a Treasury-facing economic model, a shared outcomes and evaluation framework, practical implementation guidance and recommendations for wider commissioning.

Join UKHLSI’s Obesity Working Group

The report proposes a National Obesity Working Group, bringing partners together to agree priorities, measures and a shared programme of work. The proposed format includes four virtual meetings, one or two face-to-face development events, task-and-finish priorities and an annual progress report.

UKHLSI is inviting organisations and individuals with relevant experience to get involved. This includes NHS and local government leaders, clinicians, researchers, community, and voluntary organisations, people with lived experience, and partners from life sciences and digital health.

Contributions could include helping shape priorities and outcomes, sharing evidence, supporting community and lived-experience participation, or identifying practical challenges in local delivery. The report also proposes separate routes for involvement in Gateway projects, evidence and evaluation, and workforce learning. These routes would have their own scopes and governance.

The programme is designed to protect the independence of its work. The report proposes transparent, pooled support and clear safeguards: participation or sponsorship would not confer influence over clinical decisions, recommendations or public findings, or guarantee a seat, NHS commission or supplier preference. People with lived experience and community organisations should be funded partners in co-design and evaluation, not simply consultees.

UKHLSI is now looking to build the partnerships needed to take this work forward. To discuss joining the Obesity Working Group or contributing to the Strategic Innovation Gateway programme, contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

As Jo Bekis said at the summit:

“When we say action, we mean action.”